A constructivist thesis of worldmaking is characterized and some misinterpretations of its claims are dispelled. An attempt is then made to reply to various common criticisms of the thesis. Although this defense of worldmaking takes into account general challenges to the thesis, the focus of the paper is narrower. It is aimed primarily at those critics who typically accept related pragmatic assumptions and themes, but still think it necessary to resist the idea of worldmaking.

Hilary Putnam has been both a forceful champion and penetrating critic of pragmatism. The goal of this paper is to compare and contrast main themes and theses of his philosophy with those associated with pragmatic thought. The task is complicated by the fact that what counts as a pragmatic position is itself not well-defined. To narrow matters down I focus on the writings of the Classic American Pragmatists: Peirce, James, and Dewey, whose work Putnam usually has in mind. The task (...) is further complicated by the fact that Putnam’s own positions have continually changed. Over the years he has often gone from being perhaps the most prominent and insightful proponent of the ideas to be discussed to being the most prominent and trenchant opponent of these same ideas. In what follows I examine selected core features of Putnam’s and the Pragmatists’ positions on: perception, truth, language, and constructivism. I argue that a major difference in their approach to these topics is that the Pragmatists challenge the substantive nature of the realist/antirealist dualisms that underlie the problematics, while Putnam finds it necessary to choose sides. (shrink)

I argue on the basis of an example, Fourier theory applied to the problem of vibration, that Field's program for nominalizing science is unlikely to succeed generally, since no nominalistic variant will provide us with the kind of physical insight into the phenomena that the standard theory supplies. Consideration of the same example also shows, I argue, that some of the motivation for mathematical fictionalism, particularly the alleged problem of cognitive access, is more apparent than real.

It is argued that the general thesis of realism is ill-defined, as are various versions of its denial. Only specific theses of the form There areK''s make clear sense. It is also argued that various efforts to deny realism always turn out to deny specific existential theses. Thus, it is argued, van Fraassen and Schwartz deny the existence of electrons.

G. A. Cohen and J. Raz object that Constructivism is incoherent because it crucially deploys unconstructed elements in the structure of justification. This paper offers a response on behalf of constructivism, by reassessing the role of such unconstructed elements. First, it argues that a shared conception of rational agency works as a starting point for the justification, but it does not play a foundational role. Second, it accounts for the unconstructed norms that constrains the activity of construction as constitutive norms. (...) Finally, on this basis, it draws a contrast between constructivist and foundational methods of ethics, such as deontology and teleology. (shrink)